Buckshot
The whole anti-Bush/Cheney hunting accident is reaching a fever pitch in the liberal blogosphere. My personal favorite is this post from over at Matt Singer's site, where "Gerik" breathlessly informs us that, in his opinion, "hunting without an appropriate licence [sic] and shooting your friend in the head makes you a poor hunter and bad person." [Emphasis mine]
First of all, a missing bird stamp does not a poacher make. Apparently it is a deficiency that is easily remedied after the fact by sending in the fee of..what?...oh yeah, 7 bucks.
Second, all of the self-righteous losers piling on are really sort of a joke. Ok, Gerik, you think a hunting accident makes you a "bad person?" Ever run a red light? Push your luck on a left hand turn in the face of oncoming traffic? Squeeeeeeze one a little too close for comfort passing on a two lane highway? Puh-leeeze. How many people die every year in auto accidents vs. traffic accidents?
Did Cheney do something really stupid? Sure. Was it an accident? Of course. (Or not?) You guys are so blinded by your hatred for this Administration that you have completely lost perspective. What's next? Impeach Bush for a fender bender?
6 comments:
100% on the mark. However, the story this morning about the WH shifting the blame onto they guy Cheney shot is just bad pool.
One problem, Wulfgar. With a tap of your keyboard, you create a distinction that doesn't exist.
"Risking your own butt with poor driving...?" No, when you risk your own butt, you often risk other, innocent people's butts. And you're telling me that discharging a firearm without being sure of your target is somehow more egregious or risky than passing in a no passing zone? I would bet that, in "all the years" you've been driving cars, the first thing you were taught in drivers ed was follow the traffic laws. Ever push a yellow/red light? Well, my friend, it would be nice if you were only endangering your own self, but I have tried numerous cases that would demonstrate the contrary is true. So the analogy is entirely proper. Both Cheney's accident and an auto accident involve the negligent use of a dangerous instrumentality.
Let's see, because Cheney did something stupid, it wasn't an accident? I can't argue with that logic, Wulfgar, because it doesn't exist.
Look, I enjoy your posts even though I usually disagree with you. So I'll grant you this: When I think of the notion of an accident, it is anything that is not intentional. Thus, it is negligent, or grossly negligent. I don't think you are saying he was trying to kill the guy, so I can only assume you contend he was grossly negligent, and that a basic auto accident is mere simple negligence. I'll admit that is a legitimate point, although I do not necessarily agree. But to play a game of semantics about whether it was "stupid" or an "accident" really does not advance the debate.
My point was that there are all kinds of accidents (gross negligence and otherwise) that result in people getting hurt. Do you really contend that someone who negligently causes injury to another is a "bad person?" Or just Cheney 'cause you can't stand him?
No, impeach Bush for lying to the American public about spying on them. That's what he should be impeached for.
Wulfgar, I wish I had more time to debate with you, but I am caught up in a case right now, so I'll be brief.
First, I am not in any way trying to suggest the points you raise are not legitimate or arguable. I do not think, though, they are as clear as you suggest.
Second, I do not think Cheney is to be held "blameless," and, in fact, like anyone else who injures someone in an accident he will be civilly liable. Maybe I am drawing too fine of a distinction here. There is a distinction between a civil wrong and a criminal wrong. Generally, criminal conduct requires a malicious intent. A civil wrong usually stems from a failure to be as careful as one should.
Criminal intent places us in the arena of punishment; civil negligence results in liability for damages. But we do not normally as a society impugn one's nature, morality or integrity for negligence. (Sometimes we do in cases of gross negligence, and if that is what you are saying, you have a legitimate point.) But what Cheney did is probably not criminal (State law quetion, I'm not admitted in Texas), but many of the left-ward bloggers are treating it as though he committed a crime. I think that goes too far. Is he "blameless?" No. Does an accident render someone a "bad person?" No. If this is the new standard from the left (that, in order to be morally capable of holding office one must be free from negligence), then so be it. Let's just apply it fairly from now on.
Thanks, as always, for the reasoned discussion.
It was a stupid accident. That's it. And Melody... get a grip.
Yea- at least if Dick shoots you, you get immediate emergency care. Kennedy would just run away and we'd see how your health was the next day.
Post a Comment